Good concept, poorly executed.

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

This silly movie starts out well but deteriorates fast.In an age of Natalee Holloway, and with past films like the excellent French-Dutch "Vanished," the disappearance of someone in an exotic locale seems plausible and offers intriguing dramatic possibilities.A.J. Cook tries her best but is saddled with a ridiculous plot full of red herrings and dead-ends. I was so bored by the end of this stinker I no longer cared who had Jake or why.I just wanted the main players to die so the movie would be over and my 10-year-old could go to bed. He claimed he wanted to stay up to see how this detritus turned out and then ranked it an 8 -- probably just to spite me!

I did not like this film. I enjoyed it on the basis of a nonsense fiction (a bit like I enjoyed reading The Da Vinci Code for entertainment only), but there are certain implications in it to which I strongly object.To begin, there cannot exist a Spanish speaking Caribbean island, apparently so small yet having solidly built streets and alleys in its main town and villages. Apparently it was filmed in Puerto Rico, say no more.I cannot abide US Americans who scream and shout as if their voice is their authority. I well remember my father in the UK saying that after meeting US soldiers during WW2 he did not like them because they have "the gift of the gab".It is strongly suggested that voodoo, witchcraft and religious cultism are highly prevalent only in the Caribbean, and that ordinary people are highly susceptible to their influence.Finally, it appears that the film was made primarily to appeal to those who would contend that shouting and voodoo are forces to believe in, and use for good or bad. I trust others would be put off by this in this film, as I was.Its one redeeming feature, I thought, was its story line, implying corruption at high levels, and motivated by long-standing family ties in a local community, and long-standing aspects of revenge towards badly-behaved American tourists. I will give the film two stars for this.

The writer of this film, made for television, Mark Dorff, is also the author of another beauty, "Break-In". Both films were shot in Puerto Rico, and both features ask the viewer to stretch his, or her, imagination trying to absorb implausible premises that are beyond imagination.This one, "Vanished", has an aura of the occult that doesn't make much sense. A vacationing honeymoon husband suddenly disappears from a bar after enjoying cocktails with his beautiful wife. What follows then is a young woman, alone in a strange place, where everyone she turns to is either nasty, or has a hidden agenda to harm her. We have seen all this better done before. As directed by Michael Switzer, a man active in television, "Vanished" will not add anything to the careers of the people involved in this picture. On the plus side, we are taken to Old San Juan with its colonial architecture, and charming elegance that turns out to be the most interesting aspect of the movie.

A half century ago, Cyril Parkinson wrote an article for "The Economist," where he first espoused "Parkinson's Law:" "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." This is usually stated in a slightly-abbreviated fashion, "work expands to fill the time available." Even today, with the advent of computers, there is a corollary, "data expands to fill the space available for storage."With the expansion of cable and satellite television, and the tremendous increase in the number of channels offered, with stations such as "Lifetime" and the plethora of others, there is a new corollary we can add to Mr. Parkinson's dictum: "Mediocre made-for-TV movies expand in number to fill the many hours (and stations) available for their airings."A lot of cable time is filled with re-runs of movies/sitcoms/dramas previously produced, some gossip and reality shows, and late-hour paid programming/infomercials. However, there is always a need for more films to fill the time/spaces available.In our present society, that is the only possibly reason for the production and airing of this flick. I'm not certain the description as "mediocre" isn't an insult to those programs/productions truly warranting this description. This one seems somewhat lower, in all aspects: story; performances; and even the climax and explanation for all the nonsense one had to sit through for most of the two hours. This "climax" was woefully weak, even considering the lower standards of this genre.I caught it on a day when I was fighting a bronchial malady, and having to make certain I got rid of it before an important trip coming soon. I left the program on since I was slightly sedated, but also with that fascination this type of show delivers: sort of drawing you in with curiosity as to whether it just MIGHT GET BETTER. The latter was not the case here. Gove it 2* versus 1, since the lead actress was attractive to view, and because, according to the location info, they at least filmed it in Puerto Rico instead of some back lot or Hispanic neighborhood in Canada.